Saturday, May 12, 2007

"Typical"

In the Wonderland that is Durham, defense attorneys are responsible when the police and prosecutor bring charges without probable cause; procedures to ensure reliable eyewitness ID’s can be tossed aside if they seem likely to prevent an accuser from identifying anyone; and the behavior of the Durham Police Department in the lacrosse case was “typical” of how it approaches all its cases. So wrote City Manager Patrick Baker and (the perpetually absent) Police Chief Steven Chalmers in a report published yesterday.

The April 4 Lineup

On March 31, Mike Nifong instructed police to violate their own procedures and construct a lineup confined to the publicly identified suspects in the case—the 46 white lacrosse players.

Here’s how Baker rationalized the decision,

It was the primary intent of the investigator at the time the photographs were shown to the witness to have her identify which of the individuals she recalls being at the party rather than to identify her alleged attackers.This decision to attempt to identify witnesses rather than suspects was driven primarily by the fact that the witness had failed to identify her attackers in six previous suspect identification processes which were governed by G.O. 4077.For the stated purpose of obtaining her recollection of the individuals at the party who could be of assistance in the investigation, this process was well suited to achieve that goal.

Police Chief Chalmers agreed:

Investigators hoped this [procedure] would develop some leads, such as potential witnesses, for them, since those initially developed in the case were becoming exhausted. [It’s worth noting that as of March 31, the police still hadn’t even spoken to Crystal Mangum’s two “drivers,” nor in any way tracked down what she had done in the 72 hours before the lacrosse party.] If the victim [sic] had some recollection of any of the individuals in the photographs, then this could help establish that she was not impaired by a memory-altering substance.

These statements are preposterous.

(1) At least three people that the police knew attended the party (Devon Sherwood and two white non-lacrosse players) were not included in the April 4 lineup. If the goal was simply to identify witnesses, why would the DPD confine the lineup to suspects?

(2) At no point before obtaining the first two indictments was Kim Roberts shown the April 4 photo array. If the goal was simply to identify witnesses, why did the DPD not show the lineup to Roberts as well as Mangum?

(3) On March 16 and March 21, Mangum already had been shown the photographs of 36 lacrosse players. She had recognized four with 100 percent certainty as attending the party, and one (Reade Seligmann) with 70 percent certainty. Why did police believe that two weeks later, her memory would suddenly improve if shown photos of the same 36 people?

(4) If the April 4, 2006 lineup actually was designed to identify “witnesses,” presumably police would have sought out for interviews those whom Mangum identified as attending the party. Yet, if anything, police did just the opposite. They went out of their way not to speak to attorneys representing Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. More troublingly, in their procedurally improper sojourn to Duke’s Edens Hall, police did speak, at some length, with one player (as the Chalmers report notes). When Mangum saw that player’s face on April 4, here was how she responded: “I don’t recognize him.” So much for using the April 4 lineup to develop “new leads” for witnesses.

(5) The Baker/Chalmers claim is ridiculous on its face. The duo is asking the mayor and city council to believe that—three weeks after the alleged “attack”—Nifong and the police designed a special procedure in the hopes that Mangum would remember who gave her a drink or took photos, but not who attacked her for a 30-minute period.

(6) Finally, the Baker/Chalmers report is contradicted by Gottlieb’s summary of the April 4 interview itself. The sergeant began the interview by telling Mangum she would view photos of “people we had reason to believe attended the party.” The police, in short, already had a list of the “witnesses.”

Brad Bannon summarized the problem: “They're saying: 'We really weren't using this to develop information to charge people, but we used this as the only information to charge people.’ It really begs an independent inquiry. Someone outside the Durham Police Department needs to investigate the Durham Police Department's handling of this case. Everyone who has touched this case has said that it was wrong from beginning to end, but there's no one held accountable for it being wrong. So, how can it be wrong and no one be wrong?”

Exculpatory Evidence

Baker professed himself “deeply troubled by the repeated allegations that the Durham Police Department investigators were not interested in discovering the truth in the matter or as the RaleighNews and Observer put it, ‘did not pursue basic evidentiary trails to learn what happened at the lacrosse party.’”

With all due respect to the N&O, this charge came from someone considerably more significant than the paper’s editorial board. The attorney general’s report was clear-cut: the meetings between the special prosecutors and Mangum were “apparently the first time these questions of inconsistencies were asked formally.”

In a case with no physical evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and an accuser who constantly shifted her story, any police force interested in “discovering the truth” would have pressed Mangum on her inconsistencies before moving forward. Yet not only did the DPD fail to do so, but Baker publicly asserted that this matter was no problem. On May 10, 2006, the city manager stated, “I’ve had a lot of conversations with the investigators in this case and with officials at Duke, and at no time did anyone indicate the accuser changed her story. If that were true, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it to me.”

Mangum, we know now, never told the same story twice. It appears, therefore, that either: (a) Baker was lied to by police officers; or (b) Baker himself misled the public.

Who do Baker and Chalmers blame for the DPD’s failure to look for exculpatory evidence? Incredibly, they point the finger at the defense attorneys. “While I have seen media accounts suggesting that defense counsel made numerous attempts to present the District Attorney with their exculpatory evidence, no such attempt was made by defense counsel to present this information to the Durham Police Department despite numerous requests and opportunities to do so.” Chalmers added the long-since discredited claim that the players constructed a “wall of silence.”

Defense attorneys had little difficulty dismissing such allegations. Jim Cooney reminded Baker that “Kirk Osborn provided all sorts of exculpatory evidence not only to the DPD but to the world—it was called a Notice of Alibi defense. Rather, than investigate it, the DPD decided to arrest one of the alibi witnesses—how is that for caring about the truth? The DPD was in possession of Dave Evans’ camera since 3/16 and never bothered to look at the digital photo that showed Precious dancing at 12:02a, proving Reade’s alibi. Finally, the most important exculpatory evidence in this case was the DNA from all 46 lacrosse players which the DPD had by the end of March and which they then proceeded to ignore.

In strong language, Joe Cheshire stated, “For Patrick Baker to say that justice was delayed because we refused to share evidence with the man that his police department allowed to take on the case (is) a bald-faced lie . . . This is another attempt by the people in Durham responsible for this travesty of justice to engage in revisionist history in order to excuse their incompetence.”

Brad Bannon similarly dismissed Baker’s claim as “absolutely false,” and he reviewed the myriad occasions in which defense attorneys had sought to provide exculpatory evidence to the person directing the investigation—Mike Nifong—only to be rebuffed. Bannon also discerned the bizarre assumptions behind Baker’s statement, which implied that a citizen must prove his innocence once a charge—no matter how non-credible—is made. "It's not the failure of the defense attorney to provide information to the state,” he noted. “It's the failure of the state to investigate Crystal Mangum or her background.”

The DPD’s Role

Baker struggled in describing how much authority the DPD possessed in the case. The city manager claimed, “In this case, the Durham Police Department worked directly with both the Durham District Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General and coordinated their efforts with each of the relevant prosecutors. In both instances the role of the investigator was to assist the prosecutor in investigating and developing the case.”

Yet, as Jim Cooney noted, the Durham Police Department was not the chief investigating arm of the special prosecutors. “It is also quite amusing,” he wrote, “for Patrick Baker to suggest that the DPD remained ‘in charge’ of the investigation when it was transferred to the Special Prosecutors. I am sure that the SBI would find that interesting. Anyone who worked with the Special Prosecutors knows who was in charge—and it was not the DPD.”

Likewise, both Baker and Chalmers denied that Mike Nifong usurped control of the investigation. What of Gottlieb’s statement that he was ordered to report to Nifong for direction after March 24, 2006; or the evidence presented by the N&O that the Durham Police did just that?

Durham authorities responded to these items, which failed to fit their preconceptions, as they did with all such inconvenient evidence from Day One of the lacrosse case: Baker and Chalmers simply ignored them.

---------

That Durham’s city manager and police chief described as “typical” both the relationship between the police and prosecutor in this case and the performance and goals of the police in this case cries out for an outside, independent investigation of the DPD.

As long as Baker and Chalmers get to evaluate their own performance, then Mangum should also have the opportunity to assess her accusations. I am sure that the result will be the same: she did fine, but the attorneys messed everything up.

This report is all about limiting Durham's liability. The of course were not going to admit anything or deal with some of the more problematic aspects.

So they pointed out that the DPD directed lineup met the standards with the implication that the Nifong directed lineup did not even while they claimed the opposite. They also claimed to look for exculpatory evidence when we know that was not true.

I am beginning to think that the name of this blog is truly descriptive of Durham. Don't those in positions of authority realize that there are people all over the country paying attention to this case? Do they really think we are that stupid? I felt that way about Nifong, too. He seemed to think that he could change the "facts" anytime it suited him and no one would be the wiser. It's as if they all suffer from some type of mental illness (actually, there are several to choose from!).

We are back to the same old questions. Why are the lies? How stupid do they think people are? Why are they still covering up for Nifong? They can't all be nuts so they must all be corrupt. What is the point? Another election?

In all seriousness, seven tries to ID someone has got to be some sort of record. At this point, any ID of "suspects" who had been in put forth in previous identification processes is so tainted that no one looking on with any objectivity could fail to see this was a frame.

And as I've said before, this really does make it seem Precious was coerced into making the ID.

This report is exactly what I expected. Why would anyone expect any different, considering DPD investigated itself? As for Crystal being coerced-do you realize that according to AG Cooper she wanted to continue with the case, even after Nifong recused himself? How is that for coerced?

Maybe now everyone is beginning to understand fully what kind of place Durham is.The people who are in charge of things are no better than Baby Doc's days in Haiti.They have to be forced to do the legal thing or they most certainly will not.

My advice to Duke students is to get out of Dodge and stay out of Dodge until there is a new sheriff in town or the federal marshall comes in with his posse. It's too dangerous to attend school in this lawless frontier community.

It does puzzle me why the bar didn't charge Nifong with refusing to receive exculpatory evodence. Did the defense ever specifically put him on written notice that they wanted to present exculpatory evidence, and did he clearly refuse? I know that Cheshire wrote Nifong a letter criticizing him for canceling a meeting to hear such evidence. But I do find there to be a certain vagueness about this allegation against Nifong and DPD. Perhaps KC or members of the defense team could enlighten us.

Maybe "Good Things Are Happening In Durham" refers to the "tortured path to justice" and the activities of the torturers in the DPD and DA's Office, along with those who seek to bury the truth in the rest of city government?

1. They agree with the AG that the former defendants are innocent and IMPLY that they agree no rape took place. This is smart from the point of view of Durham's liability and should be shoved in the face of the something happened crowd.

2. They name Mangum in the report. This implies they do not believe she is a victim of a sexual crime.

3. They detail the various photo array sessions. As someone said, 7 attempts have got to be some kind of record.

Durham seems an extreme example of government run amok. But given the nature of government we should expect this tendency of governments to run amok.

For they are the only group of people in society who regularly and openly use aggressive violence or the threat of it(taxation)to fund their own livelihoods, as well as everyone else who receives a check from the government. The rest of us outside of govt. earn our livings through voluntary, consensual arrangements with each other. We produce the real wealth which the politicians extort from us. When any of us do it the government way we are rightly considered thieves or more accurately, extortionists.

In addition the state maintains a virtual monopoly on most every service they provide. We are forced to fund the monopoly and cannot take our business elsewhere even if we wanted to.

In a sense we are slaves to the government. We can elect our masters, we can criticize them and vote them out of office. But we cannot choose not to have masters.

I admire what KC and other bloggers have done to expose this corruption. But I imagine the beautiful Lake of Freedom. And people like KC and Bill Anderson are trying to plug the ever increasing holes of political corruption, when the dam itself is fundamentally flawed.

Because theft is legal doesn't make it right. Slavery and Jim Crow were legal but they weren't right.

Given the purpose of fillers, using people you'd be willing to charge without independent verification of guilt is absurd. Yet they claim as "fillers" in the earlier lineups people who they knew were at the party, and as subsequent events show, that means they could be charged if identified. Thus, clearly, *THERE WERE NO FILLERS* in the earlier procedures, which they now admit were lineups and which they now claim followed G.O. 4077. This use of potential suspects as fillers illustrates the absurdity of this whole half-baked defense.

as i had forecast, this is an alleged VIOLATION of CIVIL RIGHTS...and the federal statute governing such ...

since the boys are spanish, gono has no interest in looking into this and bumbrain bush cant read a newspaper no less question the conclusions gonzo the spanish attorney general, the smartest hispo in the legal profession...gonzo and horney harriet are to be congradulated for ignoring the majority race in the usa, the same as all the witnesses, because there names didnt end in Z, I or o

Guess that's how many timesan NCCU student gets to take a test, as well as to give thecorrect answer for any givenquestion?

Maybe there will be six morefollow-up reports, in attempts to get the story right?

Maybe that indicates the settlement will be somewherein the neighborhood of 7 X seven figures? Each figure not neccessarily equalling the numeral"1?" 1,000,000; 2,000,000...7,000,000 X 7?

I consulted with Farred'sbrother-in-spirit, Louis Farrakan, and he said that the 7 meant theGreat White Chasm would engulf the Other in reciprocal solidarity,leading to the singularity of self. I consulted him via the ethers, AKA "ganja weed."

Which is what Baker and company must be indulging in if theyexpect anyone to swallow a smallbit of this slime.

The report is interesting for yet another reason. At the time of the "id" this blog, other commentators, and some media, although a minority, openly and repeatedly denounced the use of this "id" procedure. The MSM and the enablers went to great lengths to defend this procedre as a legitimate basis to charge the defendants, as though there was a real debate. Now, even through this absurd report, the DPD admits that it was totally improper to use the "id" phony lineup to charge the three victims.

So, this is another example of how this was a real time frame up and how the enablers simply willed themselves to ignore open facts to reach a policitical goal.

It is worth repeating. THE ONLY REASON THE THREE WERE CHARGED WAS THIS PHONY NON-LINEUP AND THE DPD ADMITS IT WAS WRONG.

We have to remember that the central thesis of Baker and Chalmer's explanation of the April 4 lineup simply is false:

1. They already had been through the "witness" nonsense, and all 46 players either had said through attorneys or in conversation with the police either (a) there was no rape, etc., or (b) the person was not at the party;

2. Thus, they already KNEW that she could not get a witness list through that process, unless they were intending to try to coerce something from one of the players, which is what they tried to do with Ryan McFayden the next day (and he refused to play along);

3. Furthermore, after six previous dry-well sessions with Crystal, it was obvious that the only way they were going to obtain indictments was by "unconventional" means. Furthermore, I am sure they also were dubious of Crystal's story;

4. Because of this dishonest report, Baker and Chalmers now have made themselves to be targets if there are criminal investigations. They literally would have made themselves better off had they written nothing.

I am a Durham taxpayer. Last year my tax bill (city and county) was slightly less than $4,000. I am pleased to see that my tax dollars are purchasing such competent city government. Now my question: how much will my tax bill increase to pay the damages that will be awarded in civil litigation? Anyone willing to make an educated guess?

This use of potential suspects as fillers illustrates the absurdity of this whole half-baked defense.

It does, but in fact it's impossible to believe that lacrosse team members were genuinely considered fillers at the time the lineup was done. This is obviously a tortured construction that was cooked up in the past week or so to try to put an acceptable face on a travesty of a lineup.

That anyone could believe this risible fiction would fly is remarkable, but perhaps no more so than much of what the DPD has done and said.

The 4/4 suspect/witness ID session was the 7th of its kind. What went on in the other 6 sessions? Were those 6 'honest' sessions, and was it not until the 7th session that DPD ran afoul of procedures and used unconventional means?

Until yesterday Durham-in-Wonderland seemed to perfectly describe the goings on in Durham. Today it seems all too kind.

We don't know for certain yet what the direct costs associated with any litigation will be. Regardless be sure and follow what happens to the city of Durham’s bond rating. That will have larger negative impact.

Who establishes those bond ratings? I'm not certain, but would guess that it's probably white males working on Wall Street, who earned their "privileged" status and likely played helmeted sports.

This may be a good area of study...the negative impact fraudulent race/gender/class warfare politics has on municipal bond ratings.

It was at least good to read that the Durham PD fully agrees with the AG's description of the Duke 3 as innocent!

Unfortunately, the whole case is BS, so it doesn't matter how anybody justifies their actions.

If Crystal Mangum was white and the Duke Lax 3 were black it wouldn't have caused any stir because there would have been no threat of protests from white activists. (they're too busy aiding and abetting the enemy...and besides their white guilt would have made them stand by Crystal).

Instead, because the alleged rape was a white on black crime...ding...ding..ding... Bring in the bomb squad...start diffusing the Sharpton bomb!! Can't let the white person be found innocent or we'll be headed for a Rodney King riot! White males can never be found innocent of crimes against blacks...that would be racist! That would be sexist!

So despite the Duke 3's obvious innocence, they had to be found guilty no matter what means were used! Even a plea bargain would have been better than finding them innocent! At least then Sharpton wannabe's could have pretended the WHITE boys plea bargained because they were guilty.

The Duke Lacrosse case should go down in history as the biggest racial hate crime since the Scottsboro Boys, started by Crystal Mangum, orchestrated by Nifong, the MSM and everyone else who so badly wanted these white boys to be hung or castrated just because they were WHITE. Shame on all who can't even admit the truth to themselves.

Professor Johnson has not only done a spectacular job, he has now done the impossible. With the hoax exposed, he is analyzing the aftermath in a mesmerizing fashion.

I find this blog to be even MORE interesting now in the follow-up to this notorious hoax. Professor Johnson's razor sharp mind and absolute command of the facts make this the Gold Standard of forensic blogs.

I wish that I could be a grad student again, if only to be in one of his classes.

I know we all want to see the perpetrators of this hoax suffer diar consequences, but who will file the lawsuits? Does it have to be the injured parties, i.e. Reade, Colin and Dave? Would the defense attorneys file the suits? They have to practice in this town and probably do not want to alienate the entire power structure.

Just wondering. I don't know if we are being too optimistic to assume that there will be large payouts from civil suits. I am hoping for some criminal suits, but who would bring the charges for those?

Umm, sorry to break this too you, but the feds are currently very busy trying to cover their own asses in their now (let's hope) failing attempt to turn the US Justice department into something out of Putin's [you know, the guy who's soul Bush resonated with] Russian equivalent (no merit, just loyalty). There, fresh out of Pat Robertson's religious-ideological Regent University School of Law, Monica Goodling became the ideological hiring/firing manager to "Torture is Fine" ideology not merit Gonzales's justice department.

If you haven't figured it out by now, when ideology rules, whether from the left or right or religious, stupidity and injustice rules. Always hire, work for, vote for those who display the highest level of rationality and competence. We've lost a lot of that in America and it shows.

So many villains, so few heroes.Bloggers KC and others have beenheroic, but they can't sue.

The players might settle multiplesuits, and then get on with their lives, leaving things relativelyintact.

Some of the villains might attempt to sue those who'veexposed them, thus leaving themopen to countersuits.

Duke University may sue Durham(not likely, but it would benice) for the treatment of thestudent body in general,and for specific damages they'vebeen held responsible for as a result of the City of Durh'sillegal prosecution etc.Duke, believe it or not, couldclaim to be the aggrieved party.(though they might not get toofar in that argument, consideringtheir relative position on the issues.) But hey: everyone'sa victim, right?

CGM may attempt to sue somebody,anybody. DUMC, even her heroNifong.

Charges? There's where it haspotential to get interesting.If the AG is distressed enoughat Baker's report, and if theBar continues to be angry...the Bar might be the ones whogive that signal. Or the AG.

MacThanks for the reply. I just saw my neighbor, a personal injury attorney in Florida, and had asked him these questions. According to him - and this is Florida law- only the state can bring criminal charges. Also, according to him, Flordia now has a statute limiting liability for municipalities to $100K. Wonder what it is in North Carolina? I don't see who with $$$$ can be sued in this case except Duke.

I hate to see all the villians in this case just go on with their "typical" behavior with no consequences.Thanks for the info.Janet

Anonymous said... I know we all want to see the perpetrators of this hoax suffer diar consequences, but who will file the lawsuits? Does it have to be the injured parties, i.e. Reade, Colin and Dave?

Here's an interesting thought.... There may be precedent out there that would allow an average tax-payer to file suit. I may be blowing smoke up my own arse for thinking so, but because The entire justice system in the County has been maligned, all of the tax-payers might be compensable.

Duke and Research Triangle Park are the ecomonic machines that drive Durham's economy. Without Duke, Durham would be heading in the direction of Detroit - when all the car manufacturers finally have had enough, Detroit will be a shell of itself. The labor unions in Detroit bullied many of the manufacturers out(of the country), now they wonder where their jobs are... Durham knows Duke is not going anywhere, so they can bully Duke using the "white privilege/class" argument while ignoring what Duke does for the Durham community. The Duke Medical Center and the University provide world-class health care and jobs to many of Durham's residents. Duke gives and gives, and what they get back is nothing but disrespect and trouble. Perhaps Duke should take on a new policy: "we won't hire anyone who is a Durham resident or do business with any Durham businesses". Let's see what happens to the City then.

Durham's leadership and Durham's residents are thankless.

I do an enormous amount of business in Durham (only because Duke is there) and have worked with many attorneys in Durham related to numerous business ventures. Most of these attorneys continue to shake their heads at Baker due to his incompetence, and he is generally discounted as the City's leader by the business community because he is not respected. The "tire fire" is not the only other mess up by Baker. The other ones have been and will continue to be successfully covered up until the Council makes a serious evaluation of every City department -- perhaps Council will then discover the depth of Baker's incompetence. They don't need to hire an expensive consultant. Just ask the business community or the people served by the various departments how those departments are doing. Each City department head is "supposed" to report to Baker and the Police Dept is not the only department that is running amok, be assured.

Incompetence runs deep in Durham's leadership. Patrick Baker replaced much maligned former City Manager Marcia Conner. Under Conner, the extortionists and embezzlers ran rampant throughout most of the City's departments. Baker is no better a manager, in fact probably worse than Conner, and has turned a blind eye to most of the departmental areas he is supposed to supervise. Therefore, it is not surprising that he was not informed. When it comes to running the City, he is almost as AWOL as Chalmers has been with the PD. The result is that directors of the many City departments either are not held accountable by Baker and Baker has no clue what they are doing, so they could care less, or the alternative is that the heads run their department with an unquestioned and unsupervised authority that is a dangerous autonomy that encourages "under the table" style business practices.

Probably - with regard to criminalcases (as your attorney friendindicated)- it would have to originate with the AG, (perhaps stimulated by non-governmental or para-governmental bodies like the N.C. Bar.) The Feds, too, could get the train running, (late, of course) if theydidn't have "Fez" in charge.

One of the people that couldsue - probably - and who wouldbe absolutely untouchable by thewhite-hating racists is Elmostada, the Cab driver who was "shaken-down" by the authorities in order to - (allegedly) - ensure his cooperation. It seems transparent;I don't know how else to termhis arrest and prosecutionother than a "shakedown."

Even the NY Times wouldn't - couldn't - manipulate his case totheir world-view.

Perhaps some NC attorneys couldlend some light on the tort limits?

It is understandable why tortlimits would be the law in Florida, there being so manyNY Times-type readers who livethere, many of whom would sue their paperboy for having bad breath!

Great job, KC. You have highlighted the deficiencies of the "report". It is so very poor as to be laughable. I can't imagine how they ever thought they'd get away with it.

At LieStoppers, people have been asking whether the report might ground libel actions by defence counsel. I'm amused that, by removing all identifying information other than "defense lawyer", every assertion of failure by any defence lawyer is potentially defamatory of ALL the defense lawyers.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review